On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Frederic Weisbecker <fweis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> But it may have an impact on some context checkers that rely on in_atomic*()
> which ignore the PREEMPT_ACTIVE value. It shouldn't ignore that though but I
> guess it's a hack for some specific situation.
I think we should remove it. The only reason for it is the scheduler
itself, which used to have the in_atomic() check (ok, still has, it's
just called "in_atomic_preempt_off()").
But yes, if we keep the "mask off PREEMPT_ACTIVE" in in_atomic(), then
we do need to update the counts with "PREEMPT_ACTIVE+1" instead. Or
something like that.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
